Very principled stance, Dr. Sangster- letter to Observer on February 11, 2008 by the Rev. Dr. Mervin Stoddart

The Rev. Dr. Mervin Stoddart paid tribute to Dr. Sangster's 'principled stance' in not joining with his erstwhile colleagues in challenging the PM's decision to fire them. See: http://jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080210t180000-0500_132386_obs_very_principled_stance__dr_sangster.asp


I had an exchange with Dr. Stoddart, which is set out hereunder:



MY EMAIL TO DR. STODDART OF FEBRUARY 11, 2008


Dr. Stoddart,

For a self-described man of the cloth, I find your concept of principled behaviour to be incomprehensible to say the least. In your panegyric to Dr. Sangster in today's Observer, you 'salute' him for his "very gentlemanly and honourable stance concerning the dismissal of PSC members by Prime Minister Bruce Golding". You claim that "Dr Sangster's principled stance in the PSC saga was based on that body's seemingly unjust treatment of attorney Lackston Robinson".

My first question to you would be this: if Dr. Sangster was as principled as you claim, why didn't he express these views earlier? Why now? If didn't he resign, rather than allow himself to be fired with the rest of the PSC members? Why didn't he express these views in any of the meetings that he and his colleagues had with the Prime Minister prior to their dismissal? With respect to the Lackston Robinson issue, why didn't Dr. Sangster protest his dismissal on this ground, given that he was not a member of the PSC that originally made the decision to retire Lackston Robinson in the public interest? Is this your idea of "principled behaviour'?

Apart from your questionable notions of principle, you (and Dr. Sangster) are quite wrong on some of the critical facts. Firstly, there was never any order of reinstatement regarding Lackston Robinson. If you have not seen the judgment of Mr. Justice Jones, I urge you to read it for yourself. Perhaps neither you nor Dr. Sangster understand the import of this judgment, which was simply that the decision of the PSC to retire Lackston Robinson was wrong in law, because of a failure to follow certain legal procedures. What you may not know is that the PSC was more than entitled to repeat the process of retiring Lackston Robinson, provided that it complied with the law in so doing. Instead, the PSC took the advice of the Attorney General's Chambers in seeking to transfer Mr. Robinson to another position in the public service, something that the PSC is in law, authorized to do.

In your praise of Dr. Sangster's 'principled stance', I note that you omitted any reference to Dr. Sangster's preoccupation with a 'dead cat reference' made by Dr. Vasciannie in 2002 with respect to Bruce Golding's return to the JLP. Dr. Sangster himself admits that this concern arose only AFTER he and his colleagues had already signed off on Dr. Vasciannie's selection as Solicitor General. The essen

The essential implication of Dr. Sangster's thinking is that Stephen Vasciannie should have been denied selection as SG, not because of lack of qualifications, but for a public criticism of Bruce Golding made in 2002! A further implication of Dr. Sangster's position is that the PSC should have deferred to some imagined prejudice on the part of the political directorate, in plain violation of the constitution of Jamaica. Now, Dr. Stoddart, does this represent "principled" behaviour? Dr. Sangster claimed, without substantiation, that Dr. Vasciannie's previous commentary could "create strained relations" between Dr. Vasciannie (as SG) and the Prime Minister. Again, is this what you seriously consider as "principled"?

In your world of principle, Stephen Vasciannie ends up being the scapegoat for failing to withdraw himself as a candidate. In my world of principle, Dr. Stoddart:

1. Stephen Vasciannie was lawfully selected to be the next Solicitor General,; there is therefore no rational or legal basis for him to have withdrawn. He like any other Jamaican, is entitled to the protection of the rule of law, something that doesn't appear to matter in your world of principle.

2. This "sordid, unfortunate affair" as you put it, has nothing to do with Dr. Vasciannie's failure to withdraw, but with the government's failure to honour the constitution and the rule of law. The constitution and the rule of law represent the supreme 'principles' in a democracy, which again, do not appear to have a place in your world of principle. It is beyond debate that the PSC was entitled to select the Solicitor General without political interference.

3. Violation of principles have consequences. An immediate consequence is the politicization of the Attorney General's Chambers, something that has never happened in the Jamaica's 45 + years of independence. Anybody selected by the 'new' PSC' to be SG cannot escape being labeled as a 'JLP' functionary, instead of an independent public official. The new PSC itself, cannot avoid this label.

In my world, Dr. Sangster is no Daniel walking choosing to walk into the den of lions. In my world, he is a coward who ran at the first roar.

Best regards,

O. Hilaire Sobers


_____________________________________________________________________________________

DR. STODDART'S RESPONSE OF FEBRUARY 12, 2008


Dear Dr. Sobers:

Thanks for your very well reasoned feedback. Although it was sometimes caustic, I elected to absorb the acidity and focus on your rationale for taking the stance that you so eruditely expressed in your previously published newspaper article and which you explained again to me in your email.

I have read at least 20 articles and listened to other discussions on the PSC issue. I can't remember any comment from Dr. Vasciannie, except maybe a mild reference in some speech to a group. I read Dr. Sangster's published comments and did my own analysis, coming to the conclusions that I expressed in my Observer letter.

You and I take opposing positions re Dr. Sangster's stance, obviously. I have chosen not to write an article and not take a stance on the Vasciannie appointment nor the dismissal of the PSC, except the inferences that could be drawn from my position on Dr. Sangster's stance. I prefer that the courts make their rulings and I privately mused, like Dr. Carlton Davis expressed publicly, that the whole thing was a tragedy that should have been handled differently. I made one suggestion on how it might have been handled differently, namely, Prof. Vasciannie withdrawing his nomination (for the sake of peace). Why would anyone want to assume a post which before it even began was surrounded by mess?

That dead cat story was not very relevant for my opinion on Dr. Sangster's brave stance but whatever might be the reason for the apparent differences between PM Golding and Dr. Vasciannie, I think our country might have been best served if the professor had withdrawn and then taken his protests to arbitration or court or some forum where justice could be considered. So far, however, I have read nor heard nothing to suggest tht Prof. Vasciannie is behind the lawsuit brought by PM Portia and the dismissed PSC members. God bless.

-M. Stoddart



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------